The offensive O-line, Barclay the answer?

[sharpe1027]

Nothing says they can't go back to EDS and Lang if another combination doesn't work any better. But can it get much worse than having the QB hit on over 50% of his dropbacks as he did this week?

Sadly, I think it can. They're already scraping the bottom of the barrel due to injuries.

[Pugger]

Giants were playing a cover 2 on the INT. For whatever reason, Webster just abandoned Jones and came onto Cobb instead. Don't know if Webster recognized something in film study or just took a gamble, but it paid off for him.

Maybe the Gnats felt comfortable about abandoning Jones then because all game long Aaron ignored him and focused to much on Cobb.

[Patler]

I'd respectfully ask that you apply a little common sense to my statement. I was simply implying that inserting backup may make matters worse.

If you want to parse words, then technically you did not just say you wanted to see improved play. You stated that if you do not see improvement from the current players you "want to see others get their chances." I stand by my statement to be careful what you wish for: even if the current player's don't improve your proposal has a chance to make matters even worse.

I have never been afraid of giving players a chance when those ahead of them are not getting the job done. We did it all the time in hockey, even with players who did not show a lot in practice. The combination you never really gave much of a chance really starts to click when given an opportunity. Sometimes the bright lights make things happen you didn't expect.

If things continue as poorly as they have been, what does it hurt to give another combination a try? If a player is overwhelmed by the opportunity, you can switch back quickly, even in a matter of just a few plays if necessary. They don't have to stick with it for the season, a game, a quarter or even a full offensive series.

The sad part is that the O-line struggles are not because of injuries, it has gone down hill significantly from a single injury. But they have structured it such that the single injury is impacting two positions. When the line was not playing great to start with, weakening 40% of it because of one injury might not be the answer. Maybe it is the best option, but I hope something can be changed in the results. Maybe they just need more time. Maybe they need different people.

An interesting point by one of the writers, I think McGinn. Lang has had a bad arm for most of the season, and now he is trying to play right tackle with a very troublesome right arm. It leaves his outside very vulnerable.

[Pugger]

I can see where Patler is coming from. It may be better to have Lang back at G and only have one weak spot on the line rather than 2. You can cover up one spot on the line easier with a TE or RB rather than the situation we have presently.

[sharpe1027]

Patler, you have a point, but I don't really think it is the answer in this instance. You ask what it hurts? The danger is you lose a game that you could have won with the current players.

I just don't think that there is much reason to believe that the combination of Barclay and Lang is better than EDS and Lang. Making a change for the sake of making a change reeks of desperation to me. We're not there yet. On the other hand, if they think that Barclay (or anyone else) can get the job done then pull the trigger.

IMHO, we simply do not have a combination of linemen that would have won the game against the Giants. Perhaps a different game plan would have made some difference, but I remain skeptical that inserting Barclay is the answer.

[Bossman641]

I'm coming around to the idea of giving Barclay a shot at tackle. A short-armed, injured Lang at RT is not getting the job done.

[red]

Sadly, I think it can. They're already scraping the bottom of the barrel due to injuries.

1 injury

they already knew the glass bear(sherrod), could probably miss the year

[Patler]

IMHO, we simply do not have a combination of linemen that would have won the game against the Giants. Perhaps a different game plan would have made some difference, but I remain skeptical that inserting Barclay is the answer.

I like to think of it more in terms of returning Lang to guard than inserting Barcaly at tackle!

I'm not suggesting that anything in the O-line only would have changed the result against the Giants. Too much went wrong there.

To be honest, I am frustrated with EDS. I expected Lang to have some problems at RT, but I was hopeful that EDS would be more steady at guard than he has been. Throw in Newhouse being a little up and down in his play, and all of a sudden you don't know what to expect from play to play at three positions. With Lang back at guard, there would be concerns for only two positions, unfortunately both tackles.

[red]

Patler, you have a point, but I don't really think it is the answer in this instance. You ask what it hurts? The danger is you lose a game that you could have won with the current players.

i think what patler is trying to say is that the lang at tackle, eds at guard has failed miserably in two straight games against good d-lines. unless those two pick up there game big time at those two positions, you're going to get a-rod killed before we get to the playoffs.

we're gonna have a hell of a time with the current line beating the bears, lions, and vikings twice. thats 4 games against good d-lines

[sharpe1027]

1 injury

they already knew the glass bear(sherrod), could probably miss the year

It is still two injuries at the same position. Regardless, knowing that he might not make it back did not magically improve their depth. Their backup plan at RT was apparently to move Lang. They really do not seem to have another viable option. You do not have to take my word for it. Unless MM is holding back Barclay for non-football reasons, he must think he sucks quite a bit more than the Lang/EDS combo.

I really hope I'm wrong and they can fix everything and win the Superbowl by inserting the next Bruce Wilkerson at tackle. I just think it is unrealistic to think that starting Barclay will fix their problems.

I think it is not much different than fans clamoring for the backup QB when the starter struggles. More times than not, if the backup does get his shot he shows why he was the backup.

[sharpe1027]

i think what patler is trying to say is that the lang at tackle, eds at guard has failed miserably in two straight games against good d-lines. unless those two pick up there game big time at those two positions, you're going to get a-rod killed before we get to the playoffs.

we're gonna have a hell of a time with the current line beating the bears, lions, and vikings twice. thats 4 games against good d-lines

Yeah, I don't disagree. I just think that Rodgers is likely to killed even faster with Barclay at tackle. I understand the thought process and can't prove it one way or another. I just don't think that there is enough reason to believe that Barclay/Lang will be any better than Lang/EDS. Maybe, but it seems like a long shot to me.

[mraynrand]

Simply a typical off season fluff piece by Lori Nickel.

As a made for TV movie, it gets good ratings on the Hallmark Channel.

[sharpe1027]

That was in June, after practices in shirts and shorts at probably no more than half to three-quarters speed, playing against the Packers defense installing the 3-4 for the first time, and facing Kampman trying to adjust to a change in position.

Simply a typical off season fluff piece by Lori Nickel. We've seen dozens of them making players sound like future all-pros, when they ultimately fail to make the roster just a few weeks later.

Granted, you may find a positive comment or two about him, players and coaches try to build each other up. But by and large Barbre was simply a string of disppointments, especially for a guy with his athleticism.

I missed this post earlier. Of course Barbre was a string of disappointments. That's exactly my point. Before he failed, the coaches gave him positive praise in the media (like Barclay is getting now). Hindsight is 20/20. The exact same thing might be said for Barclay in two years.

The main reasons I hear for inserting Barclay are 1) positive reviews of his practice (like Barbre) and 2) change for the sake of change.

Neither fills me with much confidence that it is the right thing to do.

[Patler]

The main reasons I hear for inserting Barclay are 1) positive reviews of his practice (like Barbre) and 2) change for the sake of change.

Neither fills me with much confidence that it is the right thing to do.

No, you keep skipping over my main point. The primary reason to insert Barclay is to get Lang back at guard and solidify one more position on the line. It has nothing to do with Barclay himself, other than that he is the next man up at tackle, presumably.

But if you want to continue the comparison to Barbre, at least Barclay's positive reviews came from his work at the end of camp. He got better. Barbre's positive reviews were mostly in the off seasons. During TCs and preseason games, Barbre regularly disappointed.

Until he proves me wrong, I will try to think of Barclay along the lines of Mark Tauscher, a low round pick who no one expected a lot from, but he picked it up in TC, got better in spite of physical limitations, and jumped in as a rookie when needed.

I take comfort in my blissful ignorance....!

[sharpe1027]

No, you keep skipping over my main point. The primary reason to insert Barclay is to get Lang back at guard and solidify one more position on the line. It has nothing to do with Barclay himself, other than that he is the next man up at tackle, presumably.

But if you want to continue the comparison to Barbre, at least Barclay's positive reviews came from his work at the end of camp. He got better. Barbre's positive reviews were mostly in the off seasons. During TCs and preseason games, Barbre regularly disappointed.

Until he proves me wrong, I will try to think of Barclay along the lines of Mark Tauscher, a low round pick who no one expected a lot from, but he picked it up in TC, got better in spite of physical limitations, and jumped in as a rookie when needed.

I take comfort in my blissful ignorance....!

Patler, I am very much aware of that point, I've repeatedly compared Lang/ED with Lang/Barclay. I just don't want to repeat the entire argument each time. Forgive my laziness. I am not confident that Barclay's ability at tackle is close enough to Lang's ability at tackle to be a net gain relative Lang's ability at guard relative to EDS.

The arguments for why it is a net gain remain 1) his positive reviews and 2) the fact that sometimes change is good when the current situation is not working well. I am not convinced, but readily admit that I could be wrong. I hope that I am.

***Disclaimer**** All points made hereafter and before were presented under the assumption that the comparative value of the starting Barclay vs. EDS includes the value of moving Lang to his natural position at guard. This assumption need not be expressly restated in each post. ****End Disclaimer****